4.5 Article

The use of proton pump inhibitors decreases the risk of diabetes mellitus in patients with upper gastrointestinal disease A population-based retrospective cohort study

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 95, 期 28, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004195

关键词

cohort study; defined daily dose; diabetes mellitus; proton pump inhibitors; risk

资金

  1. Taipei Medical University [TMU99-AE1-B04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on the risk of diabetes mellitus (DM) among patients with upper gastrointestinal disease (UGID). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study with a follow-up period of 5 years. We identified 388,098 patients who were diagnosed with UGID between 2000 and 2006 from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database of the Taiwan National Health Insurance program. We used Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) to compare the risk of DM between UGID patients received PPIs and those did not receive PPIs. HRs were adjusted for possible confounders, including age, sex, hypertension, gout and/or hyperuricemia, coronary artery disease, stroke, pancreatitis, hyperlipidemia, obesity, H2-blocker use, and clozapine or olanzapine use. The dose-related effects of PPIs on the risk of DM were evaluated according to the defined daily dose (DDD). Results: The adjusted HR was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73-0.88) for the study group (UGID patients with PPIs) compared with comparison group I (UGID patients without PPIs). Among patients who used PPIs, those older than 60 years of age had a lower risk of DM (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.83) than those younger than 40 years. Additionally, the effect of PPIs was significantly dose-dependent (P for trend <0.001). Patients with UGID who received >540 DDDs of PPIs exhibited the greatest reduction in the risk of DM. Conclusions: Our results demonstrated a decreased risk of DM in UGID patients who used PPIs; the risk appeared to be significantly dose-dependent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据